1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Translation, Cognition & Behavior
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study analyzes translation behaviour with respect to the salience of two grammatical constructions that differ in frequency. We assumed that a more frequent construction is also more entrenched in the translator’s mind and that as a result different translation solutions are more readily available. For this reason, we expected that a more frequent construction is translated more quickly than a less frequent construction, resulting in lower reading and typing-related measures of cognitive effort during the translation process. A translation experiment was designed to test this assumption. We triangulated keystroke logging and eye tracking data from 11 professional translators and tested the results using linear mixed regression modelling, controlling for, among others, lexically-based effects of salience. While we did not find statistically significant evidence of a facilitation effect regarding the entrenchment of (partially) abstract grammatical structures (-NPs), we did find salience effects from lexical sources such as cross-linguistic structural priming and words with typical translation solutions. Lexical effects of salience on the translation process were shown to be more reliable indicators of facilitation in translation than the salience of more abstract linguistic structures – at least if the effect is a result of salience that stems from entrenchment. Since one limitation of our study is its necessarily small sample size, we draw methodological conclusions for improving experimental designs that will be useful for researchers in empirical translation studies.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00062.hei
2022-06-28
2023-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00062.hei
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, Harald, Douglas J. Davidson, and Douglas M. Bates
    2008 “Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items.” Journal of Memory and Language59 (4): 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mona
    1996 “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The challenges that lie ahead”. InTerminology, LSP and Translation, edited byHarold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  3. Bangalore, Srinivas, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Schaeffer, and Annegret Sturm
    2016 “Syntactic Variance and Priming Effects in Translation.” InNew Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited byMichael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 211–238. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barton, Kamil
    2009 Mu-MIn: Multi-model inference. R Package Version 0.12.2/r18. R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/mumin/
  5. Berg, Thomas
    2017 “Compounding in English and German: A quantitative translation study.” Languages in Contrast17 (1): 43–68. 10.1075/lic.17.1.03ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.03ber [Google Scholar]
  6. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
    2012 Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110294002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  7. BNC Consortium
    BNC Consortium 2007 The British National Corpus, XML Edition. Oxford Text Archive. hdl.handle.net/20.500.12024/2554
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brysbaert, Marc
    2021 “Power Considerations in Bilingualism Research: Time to step up our game.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition24 (5): 813–18. 10.1017/S1366728920000437
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000437 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan
    2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carl, Michael
    2012 “Translog–II: A Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research.” InProceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Istanbul, Turkey: pp.4108–4112.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2021 “Information and Entropy Measures of Rendered Literal Translation.” InExplorations in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited byMichael Carl, 113–140. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑69777‑8_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69777-8_5 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted
    2012 “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of default and challenged translation production.” Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition2 (1): 127–145.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Carl, Michael, and Moritz Schaeffer
    2017a “Sketch of a Noisy Channel Model for the Translation Process.” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited bySilvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hofmann, 71–117. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017b “Why Translation Is Difficult: A corpus-based study of non-literality in post-editing and from-scratch translation.” Hermes56: 43–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer
    eds. 2016a New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4 [Google Scholar]
  16. Carl, Michael, Moritz Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore
    2016b “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database.” InNew Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited byMichael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 13–54. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen, Jonathan D., David Servan-Schreiber, and James L. McClelland
    1992 “A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach to Automaticity.” The American Journal of Psychology105 (2): 239–269. 10.2307/1423029
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1423029 [Google Scholar]
  18. Couto-Vale, Daniel
    2017 “What Does a Translator Do When Not Writing?” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited bySilvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hofmann, 209–237. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. De Groot, Annette M. B.
    1992 “Determinants of Word Translation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition18 (5): 1001–1018.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Diependaele, Kevin, Kristin Lemhöfer, and Marc Brysbaert
    2013 “The Word Frequency Effect in First and Second-Language Word Recognition: A lexical entrenchment account.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology66 (5): 843–863. 10.1080/17470218.2012.720994
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.720994 [Google Scholar]
  21. Divjak, Dagmar, and Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris
    2019 “Frequency and Entrenchment.” InCognitive Linguistics – Foundations of Language, edited byEwa Dabrowska, and Dagmar Divjak, 61–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110626476‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626476-004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dragsted, Barbara
    2012 “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation – Correlating product and process data.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (1): 81–98. 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Evert, Stefan, and Andrew Hardie
    2011 “Twenty-first Century Corpus Workbench: Updating a query architecture for the new millennium.” InProceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2011 Conference. University of Birmingham.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fedorenko, Evelina, Alfonso Nieto-Castanõn, and Nancy Kanwisher
    2012 “Lexical and Syntactic Representations in the Brain: An fMRI investigation with multi-voxel pattern analyses.” Neuropsychologia50 (4): 499–513. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferreira, Aline, Stefan Th. Gries, and John W. Schwieter
    2021 “Assessing Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Professional Translators: A study on language dominance and directionality.” InTranslation, Interpreting, Cognition: The Way out of the Box, edited byTra&Co Group, 115–143. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/zenodo.4544686
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4544686 [Google Scholar]
  26. Frank, Austin
    2014 Diagnosing Collinearity in Mixed Models from Lme4, Vif.mer Function. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aufrank/R%E2%80%93hacks/master/mer%E2%80%93utils.R
  27. Freiwald, Jonas, Arndt Heilmann, Tatiana Serbina, and Stella Neumann
    2020 “Automatization in Translation Behavior: Evidence from a translation experiment for the language pair German-English.” InNew Empirical Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting, edited byLore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems, and Bart Defrancq, 179–212. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Green, Peter, and Catriona J. MacLeod
    2016 “SIMR: An R Package for Power Analysis of Generalized Linear Mixed Models by Simulation.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution7 (4): 493–498. 10.1111/2041‑210X.12504
     https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504 [Google Scholar]
  29. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian Matthiessen
    2014 Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed.London, New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  30. Halverson, Sandra L.
    2015 “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms: The case of ‘literal translation’.” Translation Spaces4 (2): 310–340. 10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal [Google Scholar]
  31. 2017 “Gravitational Pull in Translation: Testing a revised model.” InEmpirical Translation Studies, edited byGert de Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, 9–45. Berlin, Boston: DeGruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-002 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2019 “‘Default’ Translation: A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior2 (2): 187–210. 10.1075/tcb.00023.hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00023.hal [Google Scholar]
  33. 2020 “Translation, Linguistic Commitment and Cognition.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited byFabio Alves, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 36–50. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315178127‑4
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178127-4 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia
    2017 “EEG and Universal Language Processing in Translation.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited byJohn W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 232–247. Hoboken: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch13
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann, and Erich Steiner
    eds. 2012 Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110260328
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hawkins, John A.
    1986 A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Agnes Moors
    2017 “On the Automaticity of Language Processing.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited byHans-Jörg Schmid, 201–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1037/15969‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-010 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hebb, Donald O.
    1949 The Organization of Behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Heilmann, Arndt
    2021 Profiling Effects of Syntactic Complexity in Translation: A multi-method approach. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen University.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Heilmann, Arndt, and Carme Llorca-Bofí
    2021 “Analysing the Effects of Lexical Cognates on Translation Properties: A multi-variate product and process based approach.” InRecent Advances in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited byMichael Carl, 203–220. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑69777‑8_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69777-8_8 [Google Scholar]
  41. Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, and Stella Neumann
    2018 “Processing of Grammatical Metaphor: Insights from Controlled Translation and Reading Experiments.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior1 (2): 195–220. 10.1075/tcb.00009.hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00009.hei [Google Scholar]
  42. Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Daniel Couto-Vale, and Stella Neumann
    2019 “Shorter Than a Text, Longer Than a Sentence: source text length for ecologically valid translation experiments.” Target1: 98–125. 10.1075/target.17122.hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17122.hei [Google Scholar]
  43. Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Jonas Freiwald, and Stella Neumann
    2021 “Animacy and Agentivity of Subject Themes in English-German Translation.” Lingua261: 102813. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102813
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102813 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
    2011 Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An eye tracking and key-logging study. PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Jolsvai, Hajnal, Stewart M. McCauley, and Morten H. Christiansen
    2020 “Meaningfulness Beats Frequency in Multiword Chunk Processing.” Cognitive Science44 (10): e12885. 10.1111/cogs.12885
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12885 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jost, Ethan, and Morten H. Christiansen
    2017 “Statistical Learning as a Domain-General Mechanism of Entrenchment.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited byHans-Jörg Schmid, 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1037/15969‑011
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-011 [Google Scholar]
  47. Komsta, Lukasz, and Frederick Novomestky
    2015 Moments: Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. https://CRAN.xn--rproject-sn3d.org/package=moments
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Königs, Frank G.
    1987 “Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen.” [What Happens When Translating. Theoretical aspects, empirical findings and practical consequences] Die Neueren Sprachen86 (2): 162–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff, and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen
    2015 Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.htmln0qTH7jYKtICMhw7qBx5m
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone
    2012 “Average Pause Ratio as an Indicator of Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing: A case study.” InWorkshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice. San Diego, California, USA: Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. https://aclanthology.org/2012.amta-wptp.3
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma
    2012 “Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of english.” Behavior Research Methods44: 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  53. Monsell, Stephen, Michael C. Doyle, and Patrick N. Haggard
    1989 “Effects of Frequency on Visual Word Recognition Tasks: Where are they?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General118 (1): 43. 10.1037/0096‑3445.118.1.43
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.43 [Google Scholar]
  54. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2012 “Just a Matter of Scope.” Translation Spaces1 (1): 169–188. 10.1075/ts.1.08mun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.08mun [Google Scholar]
  55. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and José M. Cardona Guerra
    2018 “Translating in Fits and Starts: Pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice27 (4): 525–551. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1531897
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1531897 [Google Scholar]
  56. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Celia Martín de Leon
    2018 “Fascinatin’ Rhythm – and Pauses in Translators’ Cognitive Processes.” Hermes57: 29–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Paradis, Michel
    1994 “Neurolinguistic Aspects of Implicit and Explicit Memory: Implication for bilingualism and second language acquisition.” InImplicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, edited byNick Ellis, 393–419. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2004 A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.18 [Google Scholar]
  59. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.xn--rproject-sn3d.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Rayner, Keith
    1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 years of research.” Psychological Bulletin124 (3): 372–422. 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  61. Saffran, Jenny R., Richard N. Aslin, and Elissa L. Newport
    1996 “Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants.” Science274 (5294): 1926–1928. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 [Google Scholar]
  62. Schaeffer, Moritz, Barbara Dragsted, Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund, Laura Winther Balling, and Michael Carl
    2016 “Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation.” InNew Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited byMichael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 183–210. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    ed. 2017a Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2017b “Linguistic Entrenchment and Its Psychological Foundations.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited byHans-Jörg Schmid, 435–452. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1037/15969‑020
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-020 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schönthal, David
    2016 On the Multifaceted Nature of English Of-NPs. A theoretical, corpus, cotextual and cognitive approach. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Schoonbaert, Sofie, Wouter Duyck, Marc Brysbaert, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
    2009 “Semantic and Translation Priming from a First Language to a Second and Back: Making sense of the findings.” Memory & Cognition37 (5): 569–586. 10.3758/MC.37.5.569
     https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.5.569 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Susanne Flach
    2017 “The Corpus-Based Perspective on Entrenchment.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited byHans-Jörg Schmid, 101–127. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1037/15969‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-006 [Google Scholar]
  68. Teich, Elke
    2003 Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896541
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  69. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
    2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from process research.” Meta50 (2): 405–414. 10.7202/010990ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  70. Tokowicz, Natasha, and Judith F. Kroll
    2007 “Number of Meanings and Concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages.” Language and Cognitive Processes22 (5): 727–779. 10.1080/01690960601057068
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601057068 [Google Scholar]
  71. Toury, Gideon
    2012 Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  72. Vanroy, Bram, Moritz Schaeffer, and Lieve Macken
    2021 “Comparing the Effect of Product-Based Metrics on the Translation Process.” Frontiers in Psychology12. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.681945. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.681945
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.681945 [Google Scholar]
  73. Verhagen, Véronique, Maria Mos, Ad Backus, and Joost Schilperoord
    2018 “Predictive Language Processing Revealing Usage-based Variation.” Language and Cognition10: 329–373. 10.1017/langcog.2018.4
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.4 [Google Scholar]
  74. Voga, Madeleine, and Jonathan Grainger
    2007 “Cognate Status and Cross-Script Translation Priming.” Memory and Cognition35 (5): 938–952. 10.3758/BF03193467
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193467 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wicherts, Jelte M., Coosje L. S. Veldkamp, Hilde E. M. Augusteijn, Marjan Bakker, Robbie C. M. van Aert, and Marcel A. L. M. van Assen
    2016 “Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking.” Frontiers in Psychology7: 1832. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00062.hei
Loading
Analyzing the effects of entrenched grammatical constructions on translation
Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5, 110 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00062.hei
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00062.hei
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00062.hei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): automaticity; default translation; entrenchment; translation experiment

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error